Gittin

an old man is different, because he knows how to make over things. But no, said Raba; [we decide] from the following: 'If the signature of the security [for another] appears below the signatures to the bond, the lender may recover from his [the security's] unmortgaged property.  Said R. Ashi: What is the difficulty? Perhaps a man is different, because he knows how to make over things. No, said R. Ashi; we decide from the following: A woman may write her own Get  and a man may write his own receipt,  because a document is only rendered valid by its signatures. Raba said: If a man writes a Get for his wife and entrusts it to his slave, and also writes a deed assigning the slave to her, she becomes the legal owner of the slave and she is divorced by the Get. Why should this be? The slave is a moving courtyard,  and a moving courtyard cannot transfer ownership. And should you reply that we speak of a slave who stands still, has not Raba laid down that things which do not transfer ownership when moving do not transfer it when standing or sitting? The law, however, is [that the Get is valid if the slave] is bound. Raba also said: If a man wrote a Get for his wife and put it in his courtyard and then wrote a deed assigning her the courtyard, she becomes owner of the courtyard and is divorced by the Get. Both of these statements of Raba are necessary. For if he had confined himself to the first statement, about the slave, I should have said that this applies strictly to a slave, but in the case of a courtyard [I should declare the Get invalid], so as not to set a precedent for a courtyard which comes into her possession subsequently.  And again, if he had stated only the rule about a courtyard, I should have said that this applies strictly to a courtyard, but in the case of a slave I should debar one who is bound so as not to set a precedent for one who is not bound. Now I know [that this is not so]. Said Abaye: Let us see. From what expression in the Scripture do we infer the rule about a courtyard? From the words 'her hand'.  Therefore, just as, if he gives the Get into her hand, the husband can divorce her with her consent or without her consent, so if he places it in the courtyard he should be able to divorce her with her consent or without her consent. But the gift [of the courtyard] can be made only with her consent and not against her will.  R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred to this objection. There is, [he said,] the case of her appointing an agent to receive the Get from the husband,  which appointment can be made only with her will but not against her will, and yet the agent is duly authorised?  And Abaye? — He rejoins: The rule of agency is not derived from the term 'her hand'; the rule regarding agency is derived from the superfluous letter in the word we-shilhah  ['and he send her'].  Or if you prefer, I can reply that we find cases where an agent for receiving [the Get is also appointed] without the consent [of the wife], since a father can accept a Get for his daughter who is still a child  without her consent. ON AN OLIVE LEAF etc. We understand the ruling (in the case of a Get written] on the hand of a slave